Slashdot Mirror

Moore defends this argument on his website. He says they have formed a war room to defend against the backlash.

flight info

What the movie says is this: "It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country."

These facts are based entirely on the findings contained in the 9/11 commission draft report, which states, "After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin." National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12;

In fact, as I reported in House of Bush, House of Saud, the first flight took place on September 13, when restrictions on private planes were still in place. According to the St. Petersburg Times, that flight has since been corroborated by authorities at Tampa International Airport.

The St. Petersberg Times article to which Unger refers also states, "The 9/11 Commission, which has said the flights out of the United States were handled appropriately by the FBI, appears concerned with the handling of the Tampa flight... Most of the aircraft allowed to fly in U.S. airspace on Sept. 13 were empty airliners being ferried from the airports where they made quick landings on Sept. 11. The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights." Jean Heller, TIA now verifies flight of Saudis; The government has long denied that two days after the 9/11 attacks, the three were allowed to fly. St. Petersburg Times, June 9, 2004.

Former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has testified that he approved these flights, stating that "it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House."

OK... He claimed Bush let some Bin Laden family members out of the country during the air lockdown. This is not true.

You are lying and/or ignorant (and I'd bet you haven't seen the movie in the first place). Moore did NOT make that claim. Stop spreading stupid anti-Moore propaganda that has been clearly refuted.

First of all, it's not made clear that he's showing Heston at a seperate, later speach, and it seems quite likely he expected the audience to be confused by the editing technique. However what's really dishonest and wrong it's the part right _after_ that where he splices together three sentences that were originally scattered about a 13 paragraph speach, in order to make Heston sound as bad as possible.

Ethically that is completly abhorent to me. I agree with Moore's politics in both Bowling For Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, however that does not excuse lies and/or misrepresentations in order to convince people you're right. If you can't support it with the truth, don't support it at all.

Sure what Heston actually said isn't great, but it's a lot nicer and more reasonable than what Moore made him out to have said. And Moore's only defense was that Heston said every word that Moore used.

In the same vein Micheal Moore has said,
"One thing you get used to when you're a snowman is to fantasize about Bush." and "I've enjoyed knowingly making up lies and repeating them over and over in the hopes that people will believe them. Look, I accept the fact that I'm a "crapweasel," and a "fat fucking piece of shit""

After all, Moore said every word right here. However i wouldn't accept putting the words together in that way to be good journalism anymore than i support what Moore did to Heston's speach, which ironicly ends "Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile toward us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context."

There isn't a single word in F911 that hasn't been thoroughly researched and verified by a team of fact checkers.

Given your claim, it's interesting to note that "Joanne Doroshow, an associate producer of the film, says the sequence is "somewhat confusing, admittedly."" when speaking of the sequence that _seems_ to say that members of the bin Laden famil were flown out of the US after 9/11 while civilian flights were still grounded. (It's from this article about the movie.)

That's not as bad as what he did to Heston's speach, but it still seems disreputable and detracts from the things he says that are actually true.

Oh, and here's the comparison of what Moore put in the film and what Heston actually said, and it even included a mid-sentence cut which i'd forgotten about, which makes the words i put in Moore's mouth even more appropriate.

No distortion of facts there, except for that done by those who claim Moore's film is saying something that it is not.

He might not be the most trustworthy guy in the world, or not impartial at all, but he's got an opinion, and at least he's making people AWARE of certain things, and more importantly, critically thinking for themselves.

Before you make a knee-jerk reaction and moderate - read the entire post and following the links. You will might learn something you didn't know before.

Michael Moore does not just disagree with Bush Administration policies, he hates America and Americans generally. He actually thinks America's enemies are the good guys and Americans are the bad guys (or at best, Americans are idiots). Michael Moore has gone so far as to say that the terrorists who are car-bombing civilians and cutting off civilians' heads in Iraq are the moral equivalent of America's Founding Fathers. (See David Brooks' June 26 column in the NY Times )

There is a difference between government disagreeing with policies and treasonous behavior (i.e. working for a foreign enemy, adhering to them, and trying to advance their war aims). As noted in Reason (a libertarian and generally anti-war magazine) some Americans are gloating over the deaths of American soldiers because it discredits Bush. That is disgusting. Gloating over the deaths of your own country's soldiers to win political points is outrageous. Michael Moore has actually written on his own web-site that he wants more Americans to die as punishment. He said "I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.". It you think that is taken out of context , then read the whole message yourself and decide.

Moore goes beyond "loyal opposition" against failed polies. Disagreeing with Bush is *NOT* disloyal. Hoping that your own country's soldiers die, working to make your country loose a war by undermining morale, and overtly supporting its enemies *IS* disloyal and *IS* treason. Michael Moore is not a legitimate dissenting voice against the Bush Administration, he is a traitor against America.

I myself think that Bush & company have bungled the entire Iraq mess. But I'll never cross the line to hoping my own countrymen get butchered by our enemies.

You probably might want to read " Michael Moore responds ... ".

Subtitle: How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine"
by Michael Moore)

Michael Moore is awesome!

The first thing I ever saw of his was "The Big One" a couple of years back on the one of them artsy channels on the satellite. I'm a movie junkie whore and would've watched anything, but when I started watching this documentary about this badly dressed putze walking into big ass corporations and asking why they where downsizing and firing thousands of workers while they were reporting profits - I was thunderstruck!

I starting googling up this Michael Moore guy and found out he was making another movie at that time called...ahhh...let me think...oh yeah "Bowling for Columbine"! I'm sure I actually a handful of people that was actually waiting for the release of that movie to hit the theatres. Then when it finally did I disappointed to find out it was only playing in one theatre that was like 2-3 hours away from me. Oh well, I eventually saw it as obviously many did; as well as his first movie "Roger and Me"; went on a fan rant with all my friends and family about how incredible he was; read "Stupid White Men"; and now in complete anticipation for my days off to go see "Fahrenheit 9/11".

I'm actually surprised many people, other than ranting right-wingers, despise the guy including people I once held in such high respect for such as Dennis Miller. What I really liked about Michael Moore after watching "The Big One" is that despite the fact he's pretty much a sloppy nobody, he makes people accountable. It really is something to see the reaction on a PR or HR personnel's face of some big-ass corporation trying to explain why they laid off thousands of people for no reason other than to save a bit of money upon their already ridiculous profit margin. Without people like Moore being a thorn some of these high powers (no need to mention) could go on doing whatever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want, b/c no-one is challenging them or bringing it to the attention of others.

The flaming right-winging ACs' will no doubt rebuttal from their tiny world.

From the http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/schlussel/s chlussel_014.htm link:

He stages an event at North Country Bank and Trust in Michigan's Traverse City, claiming that opening an account would entitle one to walk out of the bank with a gun in hand. The film shows him doing just that. But the key word is "staged." In reality, the bank does not provide guns for opening accounts, and you can't walk in or out of the bank with one--unless you're a security guard employed by the bank. The gun is one of several "giveaways" that can be chosen by customers in exchange for opening a CD account. In order to qualify for the gun, customers must open a 3-year CD with at least $5,000 and then must pass a background check for the gun, which can only be picked up at a licensed gun dealer.

So, how crazy are the things they've said about "Bowling for Columbine?" Here are my favorites: "That scene where you got the gun in the bank was staged!"

Well of course it was staged! It's a movie! We built the "bank" as a set and then I hired actors to play the bank tellers and the manager and we got a toy gun from the prop department and then I wrote some really cool dialogue for me and them to say! Pretty neat, huh?

Or...

The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country - "More Bang for Your Buck!"

There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" - that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 - and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") - which I am filling out here for the first time - the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database--which includes all federally approved gun dealers--lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle.

You may want to have a look at Moore's defense. I don't say that everything is done in the most honest way; to begin with, Moore's films are not documentaries, in the sense that they don't (nor pretend to) present the facts in the most objective way. They rather try to show the worst. However I think they are far more "true" that some would want us to think.

The front lines are in lower Manhattan. Every true God fearing American knows that. Didn't you hear President Bush's speech? Or were you too busy listening to America's enemies whine about our Great Leader's so-called "lies" about the dangerous weapons of mass destruction that were controlled by Saddam's regime?

Anyone else notice that Moore's web site says, "According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush." and when you go to the excerpt of the Times article it says that Moore's agent is the source of this claim. Doesn't really help the guy's credibility. From the Times excerpt:

"Moore's agent Ari Emanuel says Disney chief executive Michael D Eisner asked him to pull out of deal with Miramax last spring, citing concern film could cost Disney tax breaks in Florida, where Bush's brother Jeb is governor; Disney executives deny tax breaks were issue."

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word - read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was.

Now, read Heston's speech again with the realization that it was an unlucky occurance that the speech was scheduled for 11 days after Columbine and Heston didn't 'stage a big pro-dun rally' in response to the shootings, but because it had to be done to avoid breaking the law. Under NY State Law and the NRA's by-laws, the NRA MUST hold an annual meeting. If the date or location of the meeting is to be changed, all 4 million members would have to be notified 10 days in advance. Impossible since the shooting in Littleton happened only 10 days before the meeting was to be held. Out of respect, they cancelled all their normal events except the welcoming and the annual meeting that was REQUIRED by law and couldn't be rescheduled in time:

"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.

"P.S. When you hear the wackos on Fox News and Elsewhere refer to this prize as coming from "the French," please know that of the nine members of the Festival jury, only ONE was French. Nearly half the jury (four) were Americans and the President of the jury was an American (Quentin Tarantino). But this fact won't stop the O'Reillys or the Lenos or the Limbaughs from attacking the French and me because, well, that's how their simple minds function."

Source of quote: Michael Moore

Hope this clears up the "French" issue for you.

-----

Main Entry: documentary
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
: a documentary presentation (as a film or novel)

Function: adjective
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <documentary evidence>
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art;

Or...

The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country - "More Bang for Your Buck!"

There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" - that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 - and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") - which I am filling out here for the first time - the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database--which includes all federally approved gun dealers--lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle

It would be helpful if you'd point to some f a c t s to support your position. Others have tried... and failed miserably.

I mean, the guy's got an angle, but he's no liar. By the way, I highly recommend his chapter on "B-1" Bob Dornan in "Downsize This". He nearly succeeds in having (then-Representative) Dornan committed based on his House Floor ravings as quoted in the Congressional Record. It's hilarious reading.

Take the getting a free gun at the bank scene. In fact, the bank would give you a voucher that could be used at a gun store, once all the regular checks were done. The scene was completely staged - that makes it fiction, not documentary.

Michael Moore says it was not staged. I quote:

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" - that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 - and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") - which I am filling out here for the first time - the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database--which includes all federally approved gun dealers--lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see the outtakes, click here).

So you can call him a liar, but I think he's telling the truth.

I consider it far more likely that there are people who dislike what Michael Moore says and they don't mind telling lies to discredit him.

Linky

It's long winded and less than calm so you may have to skim it to get to the meat of the argument.

I've enjoyed reading these inventions/mistakes about this "Michael Moore." I mean, who wouldn't want to fantasize about living in penthouses roughhousing with brothers you never had. But lately I've begun to see so many things about me or my work that aren't true. It's become so easy to spread these fictions through the internet (thanks mostly to lazy reporters or web junkies who do all their research by typing in "key words" and then just repeat the same mistakes). And so I wonder that if I don't correct the record, then all of the people who don't know better may just end up being filled with a bunch of stuff that isn't true.

" When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" - that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 - and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") - which I am filling out here for the first time - the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database--which includes all federally approved gun dealers--lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle" - Reference.

According to Moore this scene was not staged.

Do you have any proof that it is.

In his own words

In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country - "More Bang for Your Buck!"

There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" - that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 - and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") - which I am filling out here for the first time - the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database--which includes all federally approved gun dealers--lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

You speak as if 'factual errors' in Bowling for Columbine was something obvious and self-evient. Care to elaborate?

How does it stack up against this?

You may want to read:

Michael Moore responds to the wacko attackos , in which he debunks most of this nonsense.

Micheal Moore debunks these claims on his website.

1. Don't bother communicating to people who aren't willing to devote at least a solid hour to listening before they know anything else about you.
   
2. Don't type anything out. Especially, don't provide a simple 3 paragraphs of text on what you have don't and what you plan next.
3. Instead, read out the whole thing in a huge single audio file. Do record this into a single 47 megabyte ogg vorbis file.
   
4. Do encode the file at more than 75k/s, even though 20k/s is more than enough for speech.
   
5. Don't allow any skilled future audio-techs from that cinema school to record you. Instead, do it yourself- and remember to blow across the microphone on every other sentence.
   
6. Do spend at least 15 minutes to start off detailing the history of every game mod you've played or worked on, before ever mentioning the supposed topic at hand.
   
7. Don't even think about posting your script online. Why, then people could read it in only 4-8 minutes, and miss the subtlties measured intonation.
   
8. Do post a sign on the frontpage reading "Beware of Leopard".

1. 
   The goth class, maybe I can give them special powers for all the tattoos they get.... mystics and sorcerors are going to use real magic behind the scenes to make things happen. ...
   
   Lets face it- the consequences to Columbine were not available before Columbine... there were no videogames about it... and I think if people had the opportunity to learn what these kids go through, cuz we're gonna show it, we're gonna show this ...
   
   The premise in Doom For Columbine is the idea that demons or some evil force are preying on our students in... these demons communicating back and forth on how they're gonna corrupt souls, and that figures a lot into this game

Would people still support(buy from) exploitive companies if they were made acutely aware of their exploitive practices? If it became 'fasionably correct' to boycot these products? Would the media doggedly expose the practices of companies such as Nike and risk losing Nike's advertising dollars?

Read up on some Michael Moorefor initial research.

Actually, most of the terrorists came from the US ally Saudi Arabia. The real threat to the USA is the man in the white house. Get rid of him soon!

Visit Michael Moore to read some truths about bush.

The reason for the search term "Miserable failure" giving Michael Moore's site as the most pertinent result is based on the way Google PageRank works, I beleive. I remember reading that an American radio host, Glenn Beck, asked his audience to get the search term "Miserable failure" to give Michael Moore's site as the first result. If my memory is not failing me, the way Google searches for the most pertinent results is by searching for the terms in the links. For example, Glenn Beck asked his audience with a website to write this link in their website:

Michael <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/" title="Miserable Failure">"Miserable Failure"</a> Moore

I think the paranoia isn't really directed at the stores. Wal-Mart or Tesco knowing how much you spend isn't really a problem. Cross-store cards like Nectar aren't really a problem either.

The problem comes when this information is abused. Some people have a problem with shopping information being used to target junk mail etc.

Others have a problem with credit information being centrally controlled - personally, I'm blacklisted through no fault of my own, and haven't yet been able to find out the right shadowy organisation to address to get the information corrected. I consider this to be very annoying.

The really scary stuff comes from programs like TIA - governments taking this information from private corporations and "combining" it. The scary thing there is accountability - does buying the food I buy make me more likely to be flagged as a terrorist? Does buying guacamole flag some database somewhere that I might be a Zapatista sympathiser? Does buying a Michael Moore book make a difference? What about my payments to the Liberal Democrat Party?

Of course, opinion differs widely as to how realistic these scenarios are. I'm not ragingly paranoid, personally. The only store card I use is my OSG Co-Op card, because I like the co-op and it encourages me to spend my money with a retailer who seems to be more ethically sound than most supermarkets.

But I'm sure there are people in government like Poindexter who want access to this information, and I'm sure that their machine-defined algorithms will make mistakes and cause trouble for innocent citizens. When "trouble" can involve things like Guantenamo, that's a risk I want to avoid no matter how unlikely it is. And soon we Brits will have nice anti-terrorist legislation which includes life inprisonment without trial and secret arrests...

".sig: Why are the people who call Bush a dictator the same ones who want to take away our guns?"

Sorry to reply to your .sig...

I read Michael Moore's books and agree with him on nearly all points EXCEPT this one (gun control)

In principle, I agree that guns are used to hurt those we care about, rather to protect ourselves, on average. I applaud his (and others') efforts to secure our society from accidental danger by controlling guns. Never mind that more (civilian) people die from Autos then from Guns.

However, one of the big points that he (and other anti-Bush-ites) seem to miss is exactly that which you bring up, and irritates me to no end:
We don't need guns to hunt. We don't need guns to 'protect ourselves' in case of intrusion, despite what gunowners (like myself) will tell you.
We will say such things, however, because the truth is too aweful-sounding: We need them to keep Government close to reasonable! We need them to keep those Washington fools semi-open and semi-transparent. We need the constant threat they provide, the threat to our societies' foundations, the threat to dramatically alter our way of life.

We NEED them, not so we can shoot the intruder who is (apparently) breaking into our house, we need them so we can still effectively "threaten" the Gaylord Fockers who would suppress and control us, without our consent, as happened here, and will undoubtedly happen again.

This is what bothers me so much when I see comments like "If you want assault rifles, join the [US] Army, we have tons" (misquote, I know) is that the whole point of citizens having guns is the ability to overthrow that army and Take Back the control of the country.
Obviously, joining the Army and not owning a gun would have exactly the opposite effect.

Yes, a world without guns would (possibly) be a more peaceful one, but not one in which I would particularly want to live. Why? The ruling powers-that-be would be almost infintely secure.

The (presumably constant) threat of assasination is at least in the mind of current leaders, like D.Cheny, J.Ashcroft, and GWB, for instance, and hopefully serves as a constant anchor to reality for them. (emphasis on hopefully)

The ultimate problem for them is that many see a democratic process as being ultimately the one true way towards change. While I agree in principle (again with these principles) I don't think that this is the reality in which we live. Violence is sometimes the only reason things change, for better or for worse.
Will I go and start a revolution myself? No. Would I go and join a pre-existing revolution, bent on overthrow of our current government, should they refuse to yield political power this November? Probably. However, this would be a last resort, and I am taking other (more democaratic, less violent) steps first.

-dave-

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

Read about the people attacking Bowling for Columbine

They have an agenda.

Doh! George W Bush isn't a miserable failure. Currently the big winner for being a miserable failure is Michael Moore.